A Salamander's Flexible Spinal Network for Locomotion, Modeled at Two Levels of Abstraction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Animals have to coordinate a large number of muscles in different ways to efficiently move at various speeds and in different and complex environments. This coordination is in large part based on central pattern generators (CPGs). These neural networks are capable of producing complex rhythmic patterns when activated and modulated by relatively simple control signals. Although the generation of particular gaits by CPGs has been successfully modeled at many levels of abstraction, the principles underlying the generation and selection of a diversity of patterns of coordination in a single neural network are still not well understood. The present work specifically addresses the flexibility of the spinal locomotor networks in salamanders. We compare an abstract oscillator model and a CPG network composed of integrate-and-fire neurons, according to their ability to account for different axial patterns of coordination, and in particular the transition in gait between swimming and stepping modes. The topology of the network is inspired by models of the lamprey CPG, complemented by additions based on experimental data from isolated spinal cords of salamanders. Oscillatory centers of the limbs are included in a way that preserves the flexibility of the axial network. Similarly to the selection of forward and backward swimming in lamprey models via different excitation to the first axial segment, we can account for the modification of the axial coordination pattern between swimming and forward stepping on land in the salamander model, via different uncoupled frequencies in limb versus axial oscillators (for the same level of excitation). These results transfer partially to a more realistic model based on formal spiking neurons, and we discuss the difference between the abstract oscillator model and the model built with formal spiking neurons.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".